Rhode Island House Bill H7436

Rhode Island 2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 1/30/26
• Refer: 1/30/26

Caption

RELATING TO STATE AFFAIRS AND GOVERNMENT -- DETENTION FOR FEDERAL, CIVIL IMMIGRATION VIOLATIONS

Summary

H7436 would add a new chapter to Rhode Island law prohibiting state and municipal governments, and their agencies or instrumentalities, from entering into, renewing, or otherwise agreeing to contracts or arrangements used to detain people for federal civil immigration violations. The bill specifically includes intergovernmental services agreements and leases or other arrangements that allow public property to be used to detain and relocate individuals for civil immigration enforcement purposes. The bill also requires any existing agreement covered by the measure to be terminated, at least as applied to immigration detention, no later than July 1, 2026. It would take effect immediately upon passage and includes a severability clause to preserve the rest of the law if any part is struck down.

Impact

If enacted, the bill would restrict the ability of Rhode Island state and local governments to support immigration detention through contracts, leases, or other agreements tied to federal civil immigration enforcement. It would affect public bodies, agencies, instrumentalities, and any facilities or real property owned by them that might otherwise be used for detention purposes, and it would require review and termination of existing covered agreements by the stated deadline.

Sentiment

No committee transcripts or recorded votes were provided, so there is no direct evidence of debate or formal support/opposition in the available record. Based on the bill text and caption, the measure appears to reflect a policy preference against state and municipal participation in civil immigration detention arrangements.

Contention

The main point of contention is likely to be whether state and local governments should be barred from contracting with or leasing property for federal civil immigration detention. Supporters would likely view the bill as limiting local involvement in immigration enforcement and detention, while opponents may argue it restricts governmental flexibility, could affect existing contracts or revenue, and may interfere with cooperation with federal immigration authorities.